The diagnostic accuracy of four vocabulary tests administered to preschool-age children

Shelley Gray, Elena Plante, Rebecca Vance, Mary Henrichsen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

120 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study examined the empirical evidence for using four vocabulary tests (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III [Dunn & Dunn, 1997], Receptive One-Word Vocabulary Test [Gardner, 1985], Expressive Vocabulary Test [Williams, 1997], Expressive One-Word Vocabulary Test-Revised [Gardner, 1990]) to screen or identify specific language impairment (SLI) in preschool-age children. Tests were administered to 31 4- and 5-year-old children with SLI and 31 age-matched controls with normal language (NL). All children spoke General American English. Despite moderate to strong inter-test correlations, no test was a strong identifier of SLI. The group with SLI scored lower than the NL group on each test; however, the individual scores of children with SLI typically fell within the normal range. Vocabulary tests are frequently administered to determine whether a child's language skills require further evaluation (screening), as a method of identifying SLI in children, or simply to describe aspects of language functioning. These purposes for administering a vocabulary test require various forms of empirical evidence in support of their use. Our data support construct validity for the four vocabulary tests examined, but do not support their use for identification purposes. Clinicians must apply a degree of sophistication in evaluating the evidence presented for the validity relative to the purposes for which the test will be administered. Unfortunately, although many test manuals offer inter-test correlations or statiscally significant group differences as evidence of construct validity, they often omit data that would support common clinical uses, such as screening or identification.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)196-206
Number of pages11
JournalLanguage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools
Volume30
Issue number2
StatePublished - Apr 1999

Fingerprint

Language Tests
preschool age
Preschool Children
vocabulary
diagnostic
Language
language
Vocabulary
Diagnostic Accuracy
Child Language
construct validity
evidence
Reference Values
language group

Keywords

  • Assessment
  • Preschoolers
  • Specific language impairment
  • Test validity
  • Vocabulary

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rehabilitation
  • Health Professions(all)
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Language and Linguistics

Cite this

The diagnostic accuracy of four vocabulary tests administered to preschool-age children. / Gray, Shelley; Plante, Elena; Vance, Rebecca; Henrichsen, Mary.

In: Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, Vol. 30, No. 2, 04.1999, p. 196-206.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{23d0af77cf724476abefc423daecc0f2,
title = "The diagnostic accuracy of four vocabulary tests administered to preschool-age children",
abstract = "This study examined the empirical evidence for using four vocabulary tests (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III [Dunn & Dunn, 1997], Receptive One-Word Vocabulary Test [Gardner, 1985], Expressive Vocabulary Test [Williams, 1997], Expressive One-Word Vocabulary Test-Revised [Gardner, 1990]) to screen or identify specific language impairment (SLI) in preschool-age children. Tests were administered to 31 4- and 5-year-old children with SLI and 31 age-matched controls with normal language (NL). All children spoke General American English. Despite moderate to strong inter-test correlations, no test was a strong identifier of SLI. The group with SLI scored lower than the NL group on each test; however, the individual scores of children with SLI typically fell within the normal range. Vocabulary tests are frequently administered to determine whether a child's language skills require further evaluation (screening), as a method of identifying SLI in children, or simply to describe aspects of language functioning. These purposes for administering a vocabulary test require various forms of empirical evidence in support of their use. Our data support construct validity for the four vocabulary tests examined, but do not support their use for identification purposes. Clinicians must apply a degree of sophistication in evaluating the evidence presented for the validity relative to the purposes for which the test will be administered. Unfortunately, although many test manuals offer inter-test correlations or statiscally significant group differences as evidence of construct validity, they often omit data that would support common clinical uses, such as screening or identification.",
keywords = "Assessment, Preschoolers, Specific language impairment, Test validity, Vocabulary",
author = "Shelley Gray and Elena Plante and Rebecca Vance and Mary Henrichsen",
year = "1999",
month = "4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "196--206",
journal = "Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools",
issn = "0161-1461",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The diagnostic accuracy of four vocabulary tests administered to preschool-age children

AU - Gray, Shelley

AU - Plante, Elena

AU - Vance, Rebecca

AU - Henrichsen, Mary

PY - 1999/4

Y1 - 1999/4

N2 - This study examined the empirical evidence for using four vocabulary tests (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III [Dunn & Dunn, 1997], Receptive One-Word Vocabulary Test [Gardner, 1985], Expressive Vocabulary Test [Williams, 1997], Expressive One-Word Vocabulary Test-Revised [Gardner, 1990]) to screen or identify specific language impairment (SLI) in preschool-age children. Tests were administered to 31 4- and 5-year-old children with SLI and 31 age-matched controls with normal language (NL). All children spoke General American English. Despite moderate to strong inter-test correlations, no test was a strong identifier of SLI. The group with SLI scored lower than the NL group on each test; however, the individual scores of children with SLI typically fell within the normal range. Vocabulary tests are frequently administered to determine whether a child's language skills require further evaluation (screening), as a method of identifying SLI in children, or simply to describe aspects of language functioning. These purposes for administering a vocabulary test require various forms of empirical evidence in support of their use. Our data support construct validity for the four vocabulary tests examined, but do not support their use for identification purposes. Clinicians must apply a degree of sophistication in evaluating the evidence presented for the validity relative to the purposes for which the test will be administered. Unfortunately, although many test manuals offer inter-test correlations or statiscally significant group differences as evidence of construct validity, they often omit data that would support common clinical uses, such as screening or identification.

AB - This study examined the empirical evidence for using four vocabulary tests (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III [Dunn & Dunn, 1997], Receptive One-Word Vocabulary Test [Gardner, 1985], Expressive Vocabulary Test [Williams, 1997], Expressive One-Word Vocabulary Test-Revised [Gardner, 1990]) to screen or identify specific language impairment (SLI) in preschool-age children. Tests were administered to 31 4- and 5-year-old children with SLI and 31 age-matched controls with normal language (NL). All children spoke General American English. Despite moderate to strong inter-test correlations, no test was a strong identifier of SLI. The group with SLI scored lower than the NL group on each test; however, the individual scores of children with SLI typically fell within the normal range. Vocabulary tests are frequently administered to determine whether a child's language skills require further evaluation (screening), as a method of identifying SLI in children, or simply to describe aspects of language functioning. These purposes for administering a vocabulary test require various forms of empirical evidence in support of their use. Our data support construct validity for the four vocabulary tests examined, but do not support their use for identification purposes. Clinicians must apply a degree of sophistication in evaluating the evidence presented for the validity relative to the purposes for which the test will be administered. Unfortunately, although many test manuals offer inter-test correlations or statiscally significant group differences as evidence of construct validity, they often omit data that would support common clinical uses, such as screening or identification.

KW - Assessment

KW - Preschoolers

KW - Specific language impairment

KW - Test validity

KW - Vocabulary

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033243097&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033243097&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 196

EP - 206

JO - Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools

JF - Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools

SN - 0161-1461

IS - 2

ER -